It didnt seem that bad. Jackson is blunt but had some key points. He's the only one that doesn't appear far too close to the current setup to be impartial.

Ultimately the ScrumV structure of getting high profile people on who know, may have worked with, may still work with and are best mates with the side they're discussing is never going to produce honest, direct results or criticism.

_________________'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so *fupping* what?' —Stephen Fry

"You like PhillBB demand facts for debate........My premise needs no facts to debate it" - Rosario on "how to look like an idiot"

It was all a bit predictable for me. Moaning about Barnes, no real ideas, fanciful Lions predictions. Bit boring.

Adam Jones touched on some interesting opinions, which were not followed through, but as you say predictable. Needs people like Gwyn Jones with strong clear views.

_________________"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for

Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:15 am

Cymru am byth

World XV Player

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pmPosts: 7612

Re: Scrum V

String wrote:

It didnt seem that bad. Jackson is blunt but had some key points. He's the only one that doesn't appear far too close to the current setup to be impartial.

Ultimately the ScrumV structure of getting high profile people on who know, may have worked with, may still work with and are best mates with the side they're discussing is never going to produce honest, direct results or criticism.

There is a balance though, sure, the players and coaches and so on need to be accountable and honest criticism may help. However, constantly whinging won't. Any moan gets amplified and becomes counter productive.

Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:56 am

Blindside

World XV Player

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 amPosts: 11865Location: Neath Valley

Re: Scrum V

Cymru am byth wrote:

String wrote:

It didnt seem that bad. Jackson is blunt but had some key points. He's the only one that doesn't appear far too close to the current setup to be impartial.

Ultimately the ScrumV structure of getting high profile people on who know, may have worked with, may still work with and are best mates with the side they're discussing is never going to produce honest, direct results or criticism.

There is a balance though, sure, the players and coaches and so on need to be accountable and honest criticism may help. However, constantly whinging won't. Any moan gets amplified and becomes counter productive.

They are not there to give support though, or are they ? They are there to expose and challenge, or indeed recognise and highlight good practice. Their role is that of a critic. That role becomes corrupted otherwise, as does the level of debate. It really depends on the level of debate they want to engage in. Wheeling out Phil Bennit is what they will do if it's what the Welsh public feel at ease with. As supposedly knowledgeable rugby nation, one would think we would aspire to a quality critique and analysis of what we do.

_________________"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for

Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:27 pm

Cymru am byth

World XV Player

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pmPosts: 7612

Re: Scrum V

Blindside wrote:

Cymru am byth wrote:

String wrote:

It didnt seem that bad. Jackson is blunt but had some key points. He's the only one that doesn't appear far too close to the current setup to be impartial.

Ultimately the ScrumV structure of getting high profile people on who know, may have worked with, may still work with and are best mates with the side they're discussing is never going to produce honest, direct results or criticism.

There is a balance though, sure, the players and coaches and so on need to be accountable and honest criticism may help. However, constantly whinging won't. Any moan gets amplified and becomes counter productive.

They are not there to give support though, or are they ? They are there to expose and challenge, or indeed recognise and highlight good practice. Their role is that of a critic. That role becomes corrupted otherwise, as does the level of debate. It really depends on the level of debate they want to engage in. Wheeling out Phil Bennit is what they will do if it's what the Welsh public feel at ease with. As supposedly knowledgeable rugby nation, one would think we would aspire to a quality critique and analysis of what we do.

You are quite right - it needs to have independence. However, I think that the consequence of continuously moaning about players needs to be done in way thay is constructive.

For what it's worth, I think Jonathan Davies does criticise, he said the other week "Jamie Roberts hasn't improved in ten years" and "Dan Biggar needs to be told to play flatter". He then said that there needs to be a skills director to improve these players. At the nub of it, he criticised both the players (in a position where we lack creativitiy) and the coaching set up. Two of the main criticisms on here.

Furthermore, many of the regular panelists have been quoted as asking for Cuthbert to be dropped.

You then have Holley, who provides a warts and all replay of the match. He usually shows stuff that is missed elsewhere in replays and off the ball stuff that I defy anyone who hasn't played or coach top level and certainly didn't attend the game to claim they spot (as he has other angles not availble on tele). N.b. I haven't played or coached top level!

I personally don't buy the notion that Scrumv is overly light on criticism. My main concern however is that Peter Jackson is brought in to mix it up to purposely make headlines.

The thing I think many on here seem to want the panelists to say is "We need to sack Howley and the coaching staff". It would be unprofessional for them to do so, but I do think it is hinted at when they question tactics and selection.

Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:43 pm

Blindside

World XV Player

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 amPosts: 11865Location: Neath Valley

Re: Scrum V

I agree with much of that..... I don't think individual players should be particularly the target of prolonged persecution.

It just appears to me that the one thing everyone was encouraged to agree upon, was that the performances of the team was "unacceptable !". Well I would certainly agree the results were disappointing, I would think we need to decide what is so great about Welsh rugby that we have the audacity to make the claim, what underpins that belief.

We could possibly should have beaten England and France, we could easily also have lost to Ireland, but we won and we should probably beat Scotland if we look at the performances in the competition as a whole. Pretty much the hero or zero is based on a try 20 minutes into extra time. We were extremely competitive in all matches.

What is so right about Welsh rugby that we have the expectation of anything more ????

We say the players haven't got the skills, we can't even point to players that have the skills really. We haven't got the quality of professional teams to challenge in Europe, our semi pro level is worthy of a giggle and our under 20s on average finish third in the 6 nations since it began and between 5th and 6th in the World Cup but have had a few 7th places.

Taking the facts into account, what is "unacceptable" about what the coaching team achieved with the group of players at their disposal ??? That in my opinion is where the debate should focus, however it's focuses on the coaches and selection, which is an extremely narrow base for the debate.

_________________"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for

Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:20 pm

Langland Exile

World XV Player

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 5:40 pmPosts: 61410Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Scrum V

Blindside wrote:

I agree with much of that..... I don't think individual players should be particularly the target of prolonged persecution.

It just appears to me that the one thing everyone was encouraged to agree upon, was that the performances of the team was "unacceptable !". Well I would certainly agree the results were disappointing, I would think we need to decide what is so great about Welsh rugby that we have the audacity to make the claim, what underpins that belief.

We could possibly should have beaten England and France, we could easily also have lost to Ireland, but we won and we should probably beat Scotland if we look at the performances in the competition as a whole. Pretty much the hero or zero is based on a try 20 minutes into extra time. We were extremely competitive in all matches.

What is so right about Welsh rugby that we have the expectation of anything more ????

We say the players haven't got the skills, we can't even point to players that have the skills really. We haven't got the quality of professional teams to challenge in Europe, our semi pro level is worthy of a giggle and our under 20s on average finish third in the 6 nations since it began and between 5th and 6th in the World Cup but have had a few 7th places.

Taking the facts into account, what is "unacceptable" about what the coaching team achieved with the group of players at their disposal ??? That in my opinion is where the debate should focus, however it's focuses on the coaches and selection, which is an extremely narrow base for the debate.

We were good in the 1970's, not dominant, and this has been spun via folklore into some kind of rite of passage. We were pretty poor until the rugby league exit stopped, and finally beat a SH team under Henry.

What Gatland did is introduce some professionalism and edge to he national set up which resulted in our punching above our weight in the 2008-13 period.

Other than that, we have been mid table in the 6N as a nation, have virtually no regional success. Fifth this year is just about right.

_________________We are all in the gutter but me and my mam are looking at the stars!

Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:28 pm

Blindside

World XV Player

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:39 amPosts: 11865Location: Neath Valley

Re: Scrum V

Langland Exile wrote:

Blindside wrote:

I agree with much of that..... I don't think individual players should be particularly the target of prolonged persecution.

It just appears to me that the one thing everyone was encouraged to agree upon, was that the performances of the team was "unacceptable !". Well I would certainly agree the results were disappointing, I would think we need to decide what is so great about Welsh rugby that we have the audacity to make the claim, what underpins that belief.

We could possibly should have beaten England and France, we could easily also have lost to Ireland, but we won and we should probably beat Scotland if we look at the performances in the competition as a whole. Pretty much the hero or zero is based on a try 20 minutes into extra time. We were extremely competitive in all matches.

What is so right about Welsh rugby that we have the expectation of anything more ????

We say the players haven't got the skills, we can't even point to players that have the skills really. We haven't got the quality of professional teams to challenge in Europe, our semi pro level is worthy of a giggle and our under 20s on average finish third in the 6 nations since it began and between 5th and 6th in the World Cup but have had a few 7th places.

Taking the facts into account, what is "unacceptable" about what the coaching team achieved with the group of players at their disposal ??? That in my opinion is where the debate should focus, however it's focuses on the coaches and selection, which is an extremely narrow base for the debate.

We were good in the 1970's, not dominant, and this has been spun via folklore into some kind of rite of passage. We were pretty poor until the rugby league exit stopped, and finally beat a SH team under Henry.

What Gatland did is introduce some professionalism and edge to he national set up which resulted in our punching above our weight in the 2008-13 period.

Other than that, we have been mid table in the 6N as a nation, have virtually no regional success. Fifth this year is just about right.

Yet look at the threads and level of debate on the forum, there is a virtual total refusal to contemplate that.

_________________"Business!' cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”"The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum